1 Comment
User's avatar
⭠ Return to thread
Jon Stephenson's avatar

I caught that, too. You have to think of it as a legal document, not the judge singlehandedly wanting to take down the "vax". He's saying the only rationale for getting the shot, according to current CDC guidance and growing evidence, is personal protection from severe symptoms. As such , the policy is nonsensical and unfair. His ruling is based on the fact that the jab mandate policy was predicated on the thoroughly discredited principle that the shots protect everybody around you from transmission.

We know the jabs probably don't even protect from severe symptoms (and certainly not balanced against risk of injury), but the lawsuit wasn't really about that. It was about invalidating the mandate policy.

Expand full comment